Dave V - I've read your posts (most well worded), observed your modelling (nice eye for detail/unique modules), and enjoy your photos (good light and composition). Sir, submit something to Model Railroader... see what happens.
Like Ironrooster (Paul) I think they have a pretty good selection of layouts of various sizes. As someone that always wanted something big and finally being able to do it, I appreciate seeing the large ones in addition to the smaller ones.
Keep in mind almost all of the material they use is submitted by others. So what is really needed is for more small layout owners to submit articles on their layouts. I've seen some really beautiful smaller layouts that the magazines would kill to have an article on.
Larry
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
Bob H, I don't think anyone here begrudges someone else of having a huge layout, more money, or more time to devote to the hobby. Envy is definitely not the driving force behind this thread. The simple point repeatedly being made is that such basement-filling empires, ones that have actually reached some degree of completion, so typically seen in the magazines, are representative of only a very small fraction of one percent of the total layouts out there. They do not represent the norm nor anything that most of us can even ever aspire to.
Likewise those very large layouts are rarely even the work of a single individual. Most have been created in someone's home through a club-like affiliation of several or perhaps many friends and participants. Because of that, the average hobbyist has great difficulty relating to aspects of the scenery, construction, or design. Since they have been done on such a grand scale, most of the ideas they do present are not really transferable to ordinary layouts. This is what gives rise to the complaint by hands-on modelers (of course, it's not the armchair element's view) of overly large layouts being far too dominant in the hobby press.
As to layout size...if you want a logical, simple, definition of size, as it pertains to layouts in the minds of most hobbyists you'll find on this forum, then "small" would have to be 4x8 (32 sq ft) and under. Medium would be on the order of one which fills an average-sized spare bedroom (say ~100-150 sq ft) and large would certainly be anything over 200 sq ft and especially if it dominates an entire average basement. Something on the grand scale of yours, approaching 2,000 sq ft, is honestly on the order of the square footage of many entire homes in my area and must be representative of less than 0.01 of one percent of the individually owned layouts in America!
CNJ831
Large layouts are great... Not saying they're not. I'd love to see your layout if I ever found myself up your way.
True, "large" is kind of a wishy-washy term. If I had a 25x75 foot space I might be tempted to fill it with layout, though maybe 70% would be just a narrow shelf to put distance between scenes. That could be a lot of maintenance, but I have two sons that could help.
What I'm amazed at is the seperate out-buildings or the excavations under the garage to expand layout space. That takes some serious capital. Now, if I had the cash, and all of my other obligations were taken care of (kids' college, etc.) I might consider. But then, I'd pobably spend a chunk of that change on an airplane (I'm also a private pilot) or something else.
In the meantime, I'm always on the lookout for some medium-sized plans that would be more within my anticipated future space and finances. There was an Ian Rice 5x7 N scale laout in MRP 2007 that looked nice... could turn that one into a Pennsy branchline.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
As Cliff Powers stated more or less - what is a large layout?
And as others said, that they do not have the time or money to build a large layout. That is fine but getting down on those that do have the desire to do so is getting more typical every day.
I guess I would be in the class of those with a large layout. (25 x 75 basement filled with a layout)!
But what if I just had a basement that size and I began with a 4 x 8. Would I still be classed as a large layout owner?
Now what if I added a little onto the 4 x 8 making it a 10 x 20? Is that too big?
Now what happens if I added a little more to make the layout a 25 x 25. Do I have to quit?
Now suppose I just went and filled up the rest of the basement. Now am I going to be in trouble with the SMALL LAYOUT OWNERS ASSOCIATION because I used up all of my available space?
And this thing about being a maintenance headache, if the 4 x 8 was not one or the 10 x 20 was not one or even the 25 x 25 why would the 25 x 75 or larger be one?
If YOU can not build the 4 x 8 to be a ZERO maintenance layout then even adding a 4 foot extension is going to be a maintenance problem.
If the layout is designed properly from the beginning then no matter how big it gets and the STANDARDS are followed to the letter (as in no compromises - just this one time!) then a large layout will be no more of a problem that than a small one.
I had ask this question, on the Forums, a few weeks back
- (just what were the specific maintenance problems that owners had with their layouts) -
and the only thing they could really come up with was simple track and turnout maintenance which if they had installed the turnouts properly (and which some had admitted to not doing) then they would have not had that maintenance problem to begin with (STANDARDS people STANDARDS)!
And as for being able to afford the super size layouts, remember the old song - ONE piece at a time.
Also having the time to build such a monster - What are your priorities - the trains or 4 wheeling - boating - fishing - hunting - etc. It is just that to some, that building a large layout be it a 4x8 - 10 x 20 or a 25 x 75 is what they decide to do. Crying about others because they decide they want to build a layout is not their problem it is YOUR problem, make some changes!
The last item - Finishing the layout - I get little parts of the layout running as soon as possible. Just switching one town you can see potential problems that can be changed easily. Building the complete layout in sequence (all of the benchwork - then track - then wiring - then ballasting - then scenery and then ONLY operating the layout) is a sure way to find out TOO late that your design might not have been completely right.
And if I die before I get the layout done - OH Well! I had fun right up to the end
Every chance I get to visit a large layout, I do. But No one has ever told me what the dimensions of a large layout are! So I always visit any layout I can as I always get an idea or two from the layout as no two owners have ever built the same size layout the same way
BOB H - Clarion, PA
It is true that the model railroad press features layouts larger than any of us are likely to build or own. Always have, too. You'd like to comfort yourself with the thought that "well I prefer quality over quantity" but the problem is, most of them are also much higher quality than we are likely to build or own. We are doubly cursed! Darn that George Selios!
I guess it is the same general phenomenon -- ever notice that most of the people on television or in movies are prettier than we are too? Will the unfairness of it all never stop?
Fortunately you don't have to replicate an entire huge layout to learn from it.
Dave Nelson
Dave Vollmer wrote: Has anyone else noticed that in the pages of MR, MRP, and GMR, there seem to be more and more of the insanely huge layouts that have either the 3000-square-foot custom basement or a whole structure designed just for the layout? These are the layouts that require a dozen crewmembers to run.I'm in awe, of course, but if this is where the hobby is going I fear I won't be able to keep up! I just read through MRP 2007, and while there are some decent smaller projects, I also see track plans with things like "future site for elevator" and "the workshop and crew lounge are on the ground floor of the specially-designed layout building." Jeez! Certainly on a GI's salary I don't expect that sort of financial freedom, unless the stock market booms and my investments pay out sooner. Still, even if I had that kind of cash, I have so many other leisure interests beyond trains, I just don't see myself putting that much into a layout. Imagine having something that big. Would you ever finish it? Do you need to invite three people over just to run a train?To me the ideal, being a lone-wolf like I am, would be maybe no bigger that 12x20 in N scale. That's big for N, but not overwhelming. I'm fussy about my scenery, so I'd probably scenic the thing myself, and much bigger than that would probably be too much. Even then, it'd be mostly around-the-walls so would not eat a huge amount of that space.Big layouts are great, but I'd love to see some more of the small to medium-sized layouts that are more likely to be within the money, time, and space constraints of the rest of us. One of these days when things calm down I think I'll try to submit my layout to MR or GMR.
Has anyone else noticed that in the pages of MR, MRP, and GMR, there seem to be more and more of the insanely huge layouts that have either the 3000-square-foot custom basement or a whole structure designed just for the layout? These are the layouts that require a dozen crewmembers to run.
I'm in awe, of course, but if this is where the hobby is going I fear I won't be able to keep up! I just read through MRP 2007, and while there are some decent smaller projects, I also see track plans with things like "future site for elevator" and "the workshop and crew lounge are on the ground floor of the specially-designed layout building." Jeez!
Certainly on a GI's salary I don't expect that sort of financial freedom, unless the stock market booms and my investments pay out sooner. Still, even if I had that kind of cash, I have so many other leisure interests beyond trains, I just don't see myself putting that much into a layout. Imagine having something that big. Would you ever finish it? Do you need to invite three people over just to run a train?
To me the ideal, being a lone-wolf like I am, would be maybe no bigger that 12x20 in N scale. That's big for N, but not overwhelming. I'm fussy about my scenery, so I'd probably scenic the thing myself, and much bigger than that would probably be too much. Even then, it'd be mostly around-the-walls so would not eat a huge amount of that space.
Big layouts are great, but I'd love to see some more of the small to medium-sized layouts that are more likely to be within the money, time, and space constraints of the rest of us. One of these days when things calm down I think I'll try to submit my layout to MR or GMR.
I'd like to see more of ones like at this website http://carendt.us/
Insanely small layouts in all scales from Z to G/gauge 1. Some are point to point and some offer continuos operation.
underworld
Cliff,Thanks! I knew it was one or the other but not both! LOL! Getting old timers-short memory- I suspect..
I will be looking forward to adding your layout video to my limited layout video collection.
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE wrote: Cliff,Wasn't your MA&G in MR or GMR?? I recall it being a publish layout but,forget which issue..Anyway I think your layout can rank with the best..
Cliff,Wasn't your MA&G in MR or GMR?? I recall it being a publish layout but,forget which issue..
Anyway I think your layout can rank with the best..
Thanks Brakie!
Yes my MA&G has been published in both magazines. My original 11x12 was in the April 2005 MR, and my recent 14x32 triple deck was in GMR 2007. Allen Keller will be here in three short weeks to film the layout for Great Model Railroads Volume 56, which will be available in May.
I will add to the discussion that for years as an apartment dweller, I was still able to enjoy the hobby by creating small dioramas to incorporate into my one day dream layout. In fact, I have a general store on my layout now that was built 15 years ago in our first apartment. At only 550 square feet, there was not even room for a shelf layout in that one! But I still enjoyed reading about the basement empires that I could only dream about at the time.
One of my very favorite project layouts in MR was the Port of Los Angeles built by Bob Smaus. If I recall, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2x6 feet, but made a big impression on me. In fact one reason I wanted to model New Orleans was for the waterfront scenes, which were largely inspired by Mr. Smaus' fine work. My plans are to create scenes of that same caliber of detail only on a much bigger scale (a 2x20 foot section of my layout).
I agree with Selector's point about being content with the space you have. I went ahead and was totally happy with my 11x12 MA&G for years. After all, it even spawned an article in MR. But my plan all along was to build it so that it could eventually be incorporated into a much larger dream layout. Even though I tweaked the route of the railroad a little, the New Orleans level will see many of the ideas and structures of the old layout come to fruition.
For me, bigger has most definitely been better. In fact, I would love to eventually expand my current building to around 32x40 feet, mainly to go with a single deck of finished scenery - - I would still have a lower level for staging only. It would also be great to have a small lounge area with a couch and a few chairs, a bathroom and a workshop area. In 10 years, God willing, we will have our new house paid for and maybe by then I'll be ready for new frontiers with the MA&G.
And I'm sure I'll think bigger is better all over again!
Cliff Powers
www.magnoliaroute.com
Paul3 wrote: Dave V., Um, not for nothing, but you said you don't mean to bash or villify large layouts. Ok, but if that's the case, then why is the name of this thread "Insanely huge layouts..."?Perhaps using the term "insane" may not be the best way to go here...you know? Just trying to be helpful...Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Dave V., Um, not for nothing, but you said you don't mean to bash or villify large layouts. Ok, but if that's the case, then why is the name of this thread "Insanely huge layouts..."?
Perhaps using the term "insane" may not be the best way to go here...you know?
Just trying to be helpful...
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Got your attention, didn't it?
I guess I need to take Remedial Superlatives 101!
maandg wrote: Dave,For the record, my frustration stems from the recent rash of threads which have dealt with this subject since GMR '07 hit the newsstands in October. There have been several negative threads (this was not one of them, BTW) which have indeed vilified large layouts and, as such, their owners. My tone of frustration is more a response to this trend of disdain for other's work based solely on the size of their layout. It was not intended to be a cheap shot or direct response to any of the above, specifically.I apologize if my comments came off too harsh or offensive.I do stand by my bottom line opinion that excellent modeling comes on layouts of all sizes and deserves to be judged on those merits alone.I really like your layout and would love to see it in print someday!
Dave,
For the record, my frustration stems from the recent rash of threads which have dealt with this subject since GMR '07 hit the newsstands in October. There have been several negative threads (this was not one of them, BTW) which have indeed vilified large layouts and, as such, their owners. My tone of frustration is more a response to this trend of disdain for other's work based solely on the size of their layout. It was not intended to be a cheap shot or direct response to any of the above, specifically.
I apologize if my comments came off too harsh or offensive.
I do stand by my bottom line opinion that excellent modeling comes on layouts of all sizes and deserves to be judged on those merits alone.
I really like your layout and would love to see it in print someday!
I didn't read of any maligning of the wealthy, only that there seems to be a polarity in the breadth of the layouts that appear routinely. The only 4 X 8's that I have seen get coverage to any great extent in my short two years in the hobby have been the Turtle Creek and this latest clone. Even the Argentine one of this past month, a point to point and switching exclusively, is monstrous by my standard.
Many of us build and operate alone, and although we work within our means in every sense, these expanses can offer inspiration, but also make us shake our heads at the shear size of them.
Maybe it is because we all learn to find contentment, if we are smart, with what he have at our disposal, and find it hard to relate to the much larger creations, all the other wow factors aside.
Thanks for that. I appreciate your clarification. For the record, I remember your layout and I liked it very much. I spent much time in the Gulfport/Mobile area while at the Air Force Weather Training School at Keesler AFB in Boloxi, and you did a spectacular job capturing the feel of the area.
It looks much different now in light of the hurricane...
Anyway, thanks for the comments about my layout and the clarification. I'm sorry if my response was also harsh.
maandg wrote: What is the deal with the rabid hatred of "large" layouts? I don't think anyone, least of all me, expressed any such hatred. I am inspired by excellent modeling. As am I.Period. I don't care if it is on a 12-inch square diorama board or fills the Super Dome. To turn your nose up at a layout because you don't personally have equal space, resources or disposable income is just ignorant. Apparently there is a segment of hobbyists who first look at the size of a layout before studying the craftsmanship shown in the photos. If I were to say all 4x8 layouts are child-like wastes of time, I would be branded a snob. But it's perfectly fine to bash those who have decided to do things on a grand scale. We didn't bash or turn our noses up at anything. And, I'm anything but ignorant, thanks very much. Last week I passed my doctoral candidacy exams. Granted, they were in meteorology and not model railroading or economics...Based on this school of thought the layouts of Bill Darnaby, Tony Koester, Allen McClelland, George Sellios, Harold Werthwien, the Reid Brothers, Howard Zane, David Barrow, Chuck Hitchcock, Rick Rideout, and John Armstrong are complete wastes of time. Why, oh why could they have not stuck with 4x8's so that they could have made some real contribution to our hobby. Such a shame to see all of those wastes of space. Again, our plea was for balance, not just small layouts. Nobody in this thread said that MR should just do small layouts.I would hope that modelers would not quickly dismiss layouts, or an entire magazine like GMR (puh-Leeze!!) just because they consider the layout spaces to be a ridiculous exercise in over-indulgence and greed. But that appears to be precisely the case for a lot of guys. Never said anything about greed. My argument is about equating size and greatness. I chose not to buy GMR this year because it didn't relate to me in a meaningful way, not because of some crusade.Sounds a bit like another kind of male envy which shall remain nameless.That's just silly and stupid to say. But then since I have devoted my life to the service of my country I probably won't ever have the cash to do what some of those guys do. But I'm not saying they shouldn't either.Hey here's a radical idea. Not enough layouts being published in your preferred size? How about submitting your OWN work!! Naaah...what am I, crazy? It's much easier to sit and cast stones, harbor resentment and boycott the magazines. I fully intend to if I can get some decent magazine-quality photographs of it.To those excellent modelers out there, keep up the great work......regardless of the size of your layout. You may now resume the vilification of the wealthy. Nobody villified anything. Failure to relate to something is neither hatred nor villification.
What is the deal with the rabid hatred of "large" layouts?
I don't think anyone, least of all me, expressed any such hatred.
I am inspired by excellent modeling.
As am I.
Period. I don't care if it is on a 12-inch square diorama board or fills the Super Dome. To turn your nose up at a layout because you don't personally have equal space, resources or disposable income is just ignorant. Apparently there is a segment of hobbyists who first look at the size of a layout before studying the craftsmanship shown in the photos. If I were to say all 4x8 layouts are child-like wastes of time, I would be branded a snob. But it's perfectly fine to bash those who have decided to do things on a grand scale.
We didn't bash or turn our noses up at anything. And, I'm anything but ignorant, thanks very much. Last week I passed my doctoral candidacy exams. Granted, they were in meteorology and not model railroading or economics...
Based on this school of thought the layouts of Bill Darnaby, Tony Koester, Allen McClelland, George Sellios, Harold Werthwien, the Reid Brothers, Howard Zane, David Barrow, Chuck Hitchcock, Rick Rideout, and John Armstrong are complete wastes of time. Why, oh why could they have not stuck with 4x8's so that they could have made some real contribution to our hobby. Such a shame to see all of those wastes of space.
Again, our plea was for balance, not just small layouts. Nobody in this thread said that MR should just do small layouts.
I would hope that modelers would not quickly dismiss layouts, or an entire magazine like GMR (puh-Leeze!!) just because they consider the layout spaces to be a ridiculous exercise in over-indulgence and greed. But that appears to be precisely the case for a lot of guys.
Never said anything about greed. My argument is about equating size and greatness. I chose not to buy GMR this year because it didn't relate to me in a meaningful way, not because of some crusade.
Sounds a bit like another kind of male envy which shall remain nameless.
That's just silly and stupid to say. But then since I have devoted my life to the service of my country I probably won't ever have the cash to do what some of those guys do. But I'm not saying they shouldn't either.
Hey here's a radical idea. Not enough layouts being published in your preferred size? How about submitting your OWN work!! Naaah...what am I, crazy? It's much easier to sit and cast stones, harbor resentment and boycott the magazines.
I fully intend to if I can get some decent magazine-quality photographs of it.
To those excellent modelers out there, keep up the great work......regardless of the size of your layout.
You may now resume the vilification of the wealthy.
Nobody villified anything. Failure to relate to something is neither hatred nor villification.
What is a "large" layout?
The Old Dog would argue that one should be careful not to try to do too much and create a maintenance nightmare. But that is as much a function of the time available as the space available.
Also, "large" is as much a measure of complexity as sheer size. A "large" layout with a good deal of single track running through scenes with great scenery may be no more "complex" then a smaller layout with multiple tracked mainlines and large yards.
Have fun
Here we go again.
What is the deal with the rabid hatred of "large" layouts? I have nothing against smaller layouts, and in fact enjoyed building my former 11 x 12 foot MA&G very much. But it limited what I really wanted to be doing...long passing sidings, lots of staging, wide radius curves, etc. Now there will be people out there that even consider 11 x 12 to be a "huge layout". So does that mean that my previous efforts, which were published in the April '05 MR , were an un-inspirational waste of magazine space simply because some guy considers it to be "too big"? Please tell me the hobby of Model Railroading is not falling into such a Socialist mindset.
I am inspired by excellent modeling. Period. I don't care if it is on a 12-inch square diorama board or fills the Super Dome. To turn your nose up at a layout because you don't personally have equal space, resources or disposable income is just ignorant. Apparently there is a segment of hobbyists who first look at the size of a layout before studying the craftsmanship shown in the photos. If I were to say all 4x8 layouts are child-like wastes of time, I would be branded a snob. But it's perfectly fine to bash those who have decided to do things on a grand scale. Notice I didn't say superior, better or preferred. The largest layouts can just as easily be poorly executed as a small layout. I will say, however, that the people who make a major investment in designing specific spaces for a mega layout are not very likely to just throw up some ill-planned or executed piece of junk. It is obviously something they are very passionate about doing well.
John Allen's first article was on a half finished less than 4x8. Asd he added more, they had aditional articles. I do not think they should have stopped because it got kind of large and professional looking.
One thing I like about the large layouts is that they all have some unusual feature or look, that I can learn from,and copy even with out that size layout.
Dave Vollmer wrote:2. HUGE layouts can be inspirational to everyone.
I'm not sure if I can agree with this one. Certainly, I want a large layout, but i am not inspired by what I'm seeing. Instead, they I feel an acute sense of bewilderment. It's the same kind of feeling you'd get if you showed the programmers of Pong a modern computer game. They'd be amazed, flabbergasted and shocked, but none of them would go home any wiser, because what they saw was so completely beyond their frame of reference.
jecorbett wrote: Obviously, size matters to the MR publishers but I would hope quality is what counts the most. I would much rather see an 8x12 with lots of high level craftsmanship and detail than a much larger layout with a lower quality of work. Maybe that is because I have opted for the latter type of layout, knowing that in doing so, I have to compromise some on craftsmanship if I ever hope to get it completed. The typical layout feature has only about 8 photos and a reasonably completed mid-size layout could certainly provide that. Such features could show the contrast between the types of operations that can be done on smaller layouts as opposed to the Class 1 type operating schemes of the bigger layouts.
Obviously, size matters to the MR publishers but I would hope quality is what counts the most. I would much rather see an 8x12 with lots of high level craftsmanship and detail than a much larger layout with a lower quality of work. Maybe that is because I have opted for the latter type of layout, knowing that in doing so, I have to compromise some on craftsmanship if I ever hope to get it completed. The typical layout feature has only about 8 photos and a reasonably completed mid-size layout could certainly provide that. Such features could show the contrast between the types of operations that can be done on smaller layouts as opposed to the Class 1 type operating schemes of the bigger layouts.
A few weeks back, one of the editors came to us in response to a post and said that most of the articles they get are submissions. Now if you were a amateur/semi-pro writer and in the course of your wanderings ran into a big layout you might think, Wow! what a great layout. I think I'll write about it.
If on the other hand you ran into a nice 4 x 8 or door layout that was well done. You might think, "nice layout" but it might not be grand enough for you to spend a couple weeks jumping the hoops to publish about it.
Dave, you have a nice layout. Submit it.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I would love to have perhaps three or four times the area that I have, but I would not be married to the same woman....or in the same home. It's just the way it is for each of us. While I admire and drool over the fabulous and immense layouts that do appear in MR frequently, and very often in the MRP and such issues, I would not enjoy the maintenance that would be required. Keeping it clean, let alone operational, would demand lots of time. Also, I am a lone operator, so a smallish medium sized layout would be all that I could enjoy consistently. Something with 300' of double main and 8 industries or so would be a major PITA for me.
So, it makes sense, from the point of view of one's operating, to have a large layout if you have the space and help, not just in operations but in the periodic maintenance. Surely there is far greater realism in the temporospatial sense to have industries and towns well spread out, where you could watch a limited run in the open for perhaps 20 full seconds at scale speed before it disappears into a tunnel or through the backdrop/wall.
I think there will come a time when I have used my layout that is currently being completed that I will want to take a couple of locomotives and my throttle (it if is compatible) to a larger layout and enjoy the expanses of view and different track arrangements. I am sure that is one of the great appeals of going to a club.
Dave Vollmer wrote: I agree with all of the points here. Two more points I'd like to make:1. The guys with the HUGE layouts have often done great work that deserves to be recognized. I'm not saying they don't.2. HUGE layouts can be inspirational to everyone.That said, I still would like to see a more representative mix of sizes, particularly in GMR. As some have pointed out, there seem to be a lot at the cartoonsihly small and freakishly large ends of the spectrum, but the average Joe's size seems a bit under-respresented.It's up to us average Joes to submit our layouts to be counted.
I agree with all of the points here. Two more points I'd like to make:
1. The guys with the HUGE layouts have often done great work that deserves to be recognized. I'm not saying they don't.
2. HUGE layouts can be inspirational to everyone.
That said, I still would like to see a more representative mix of sizes, particularly in GMR. As some have pointed out, there seem to be a lot at the cartoonsihly small and freakishly large ends of the spectrum, but the average Joe's size seems a bit under-respresented.
It's up to us average Joes to submit our layouts to be counted.
Obiously, size matters to the MR publishers but I would hope quality is what counts the most. I would much rather see an 8x12 with lots of high level craftsmanship and detail than a much larger layout with a lower quality of work. Maybe that is because I have opted for the latter type of layout, knowing that in doing so, I have to compromise some on craftsmanship if I ever hope to get it completed. The typical layout feature has only about 8 photos and a reasonably completed mid-size layout could certainly provide that. Such features could show the contrast between the types of operations that can be done on smaller layouts as opposed to the Class 1 type operating schemes of the bigger layouts.
Model railroads, like the prototypes, come in all sizes. The great thing about the hobby is we all get to choose the size that's right for us. Just because the bigger layouts get the lion's share of the ink doesn't mean that is where the hobby is heading. There's no reason modelers should feel compelled to emulate the big layouts costing tens of thousands of dollars to build. Most of the guys with smaller layouts will probably never get featured in the magazines but so what. I would hope that is not the main reason any of us got into the hobby. The joy of model railroading is in building and operating railroads in miniature. I am fortunate to have been able to build a retirement home with room for one of those monster layouts. I have been in this home less than six years but I have been in model railroading for more than 40 and loved it even when I was in much smaller spaces, including a basic 4x8. I don't know if my layout will ever get featured in one of the publications but that is not the reason I have put so much time, effort, and money into it. I do it because I enjoy model railroading for its own sake.
The problem with MRP(and MR in general) is that they seem feature monster layouts, or somthing very small and not expandable. MRP 2007 has been somewhat better:
I did not count 'ideas' or track plans that have not been built. One of the problems for MRP ia getting photos of 'finished' layouts, and many time it appears that the large layouts where the owners have the time/money to complete them are what is available.
In my case, the layout is in a 25' by 20' area(with a 9' by 11' utility/laundry room in one corner). The layout is more than enough for me to build, and I hope to have all of the basic scenery complete this spring. If I had to start over in a larger space, I would plan something larger(but not too much larger). Operationally I have what I want.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Railphotog wrote: My modeling is on two pairs of HO scale modules. And I'm thinking about where I could do something in On30, but don't have much room. I hardly ever see anything on modular model railroading.
My modeling is on two pairs of HO scale modules. And I'm thinking about where I could do something in On30, but don't have much room. I hardly ever see anything on modular model railroading.
Good point, Bob. And on the off chance a modular layout is featured, rarely is prototypical operations addressed in the article. I'll bet half the members of this forum have never even heard of FreeMo.
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."